I never said that we can prove there is no God. All we can say is that his job description is constantly shrinking due to advances in science, in the start Gods controlled every thing, wind, rain, harvests, illness etc. Then as science starts to explain these things Gods get pushed out to what is currently left: pre-big bang. Who knows what happened before then, but since then there in no need for any God to intervene.

I also this evolution doesn't explain natural selection, natural selection helps explain how evolution might work. The question of how the “job of the evolutionary changes that have occurred so that they could be naturally selected’ try reading the follow great books for a beginners guide:

Strong Eagle wrote:I like the Buddhist perspective. It's not that we were created by God, it is that we ARE God... we are a manifestation of the unmanifested.

But the problem with intelligent design is that some Christians want to use the idea to prove up their version of a blue eyed, bearded, "big guy" sitting in a throne, sending down pronouncements via clay tablets and "sons".

hey SE, i like that idea too. and to a certain extent i do believe that god is in all things. and thanks for adding the prefix 'some' this time! and you're right, god is not some blue-eyed bearded big guy. she is a sexy asian woman!

ok seriously, any stereotyped image of god must surely be wrong. if the human mind could understand god then god wouldn't be god. which brings me to ringo's point below.

ringo100 wrote:I never said that we can prove there is no God. All we can say is that his job description is constantly shrinking due to advances in science, in the start Gods controlled every thing, wind, rain, harvests, illness etc. Then as science starts to explain these things Gods get pushed out to what is currently left: pre-big bang. Who knows what happened before then, but since then there in no need for any God to intervene.

i like your way of putting it... "his job description is constantly shrinking". agree that science is starting to explain a lot and this is a good thing. religion is merely the search for meaning. back when people couldn't make sense of thunder or lightning the only way they could make sense of it was to invent a god of thunder etc. when all things are made clear religion will cease to exist. but that doesn't mean that god will cease to exist.

it's strange how we can agree on so much and yet think we disagree. i am all for science. i just subscribe to the view that when the scientists finally get to the top of the mountain, they will find the theologians were sitting there all along.

Wind In My Hair wrote:ok seriously, any stereotyped image of god must surely be wrong. if the human mind could understand god then god wouldn't be god. which brings me to ringo's point below.

Indeed, the Jewish term Yehwah really means "that which cannot be named". To associate a name with God, Spirit, or whatever is to objectify it, label it... and the unmanifested cannot be objectified for it is greater than the all... and the all at the same time.

It is why I hesitate to use the term "God", for besides having many connotations, many of those negative, it objectifies in the mind "that which cannot be named".

you mean Yahweh, of course, unless you were deliberately mis-spelling to get past the usual connotations of Yahweh?

Strong Eagle wrote:It is why I hesitate to use the term "God", for besides having many connotations, many of those negative, it objectifies in the mind "that which cannot be named".

agreed. not only do we tend to objectify god, there are as many perceptions and variations of that objectification as there are minds to perceive.

but call it what you may, "that which cannot be named" or even a thousand-worded phrase to avoid objectification, once a name becomes a name you cannot help but form associations. that's what names do. the moment i call you "wayne" i have a certain impression in my mind, which is only a minute fraction of who you really are. i will never ever know who you really are (and no human ever will, perhaps not even yourself), but if i cannot name you then how am i to relate to you in my world? same with god, no?

Strong Eagle wrote:Wait a minute... my name is BOB... a name that can be spelled even if one is dyslexic... unlike Yahweh... or Allah... although Alla is not too bad.

oh i'm dyslexic so it's just as well your name is DOD.

Strong Eagle wrote:

Wind In My Hair wrote:but if i cannot name you then how am i to relate to you in my world?

He who is really cool? 8)

dear "he who is really cool",

i actually thought you were really hot! oh well, too bad now. see how a non-name can mess up your sex appeal?

ringo100 wrote:Hey WIMH, I thought you were a Catholic? A very unorthadox Catholic maybe.

ringo, i AM catholic. but that doesn't mean i'm a non-questioning rosary-wielding self-flagellating crucifix-kissing pope-chasing idiot, or whatever you may think catholics are. in fact i am very orthodox and none of what i have said here goes against the church's teachings, or what i understand of it.

at the church's highest levels the pope and cardinals have a far better understanding of the issues we have been discussing than most of us here. the difficulty is explaining some of the difficult stuff to the billions of catholics worldwide, some of whom are illiterate. so some watering down and simplification is unavoidable and unfortunately sometimes that's what the rest of the world latches onto as official church doctrine. far from it. the church is one of the most intellectually advanced yet misunderstood institutions in the world.

(and eric, this is not preaching. this is merely clarifying my position as a catholic ok? preaching is when i have the intention of converting someone which is not the case here. this is a calm, matured debate, which i appreciate.)

WIMH:when all things are made clear religion will cease to exist. but that doesn't mean that god will cease to exist.

I'm sure this statement will be have Mr. John Paul turning in his grave. Predicting the downfall of orthodox religions; not sure that is current Catholic doctrine.

But I do agree the church is highly informed and is able to portray a seemingly logical argument against evolution, but only to the uninformed, anyone with a background in the subject would quickly see though the arguments.

WIMH:when all things are made clear religion will cease to exist. but that doesn't mean that god will cease to exist.

I'm sure this statement will be have Mr. John Paul turning in his grave. Predicting the downfall of orthodox religions; not sure that is current Catholic doctrine.

But I do agree the church is highly informed and is able to portray a seemingly logical argument against evolution, but only to the uninformed, anyone with a background in the subject would quickly see though the arguments.

my dear man, you seem "sure" of many things. i don't want to sound condescending but you must be young? ha ha, only youth has that kind of infallible certainty. i have long ceased to see the world, yes even science, as black and white.

a hypothesis is far from black and white. and evolution is just that, a hypothesis - an unproven theory about how the world works. science has turned itself on its head many times, as you would know if you have "a background in the subject" problem is, our understanding evolves over decades or even lifetimes. so we cannot be "sure" that the prevailing truth in our particular fleeting lifetime is the correct one.

as for JPII, he and his predecessors and priests have longed preached that the only reason for the existence of the church is to spread the gospel message. when the truth is known at the "end times" there is no more need to spread a message that all have already heard or seen. so yes, the church's goal, unbelievable as it sounds, is to make itself irrelevant. as is or should be the goal of any good government, any good leader, any good parent.

Politics is the religion of this world and religion is the politics of the other world, that's the difference between the two. And, the politician and the priest have been in a deep conspiracy for centuries.

It's not getting any smarter out there. You have to come to terms with stupidity, and make it work for you.

Wind In My Hair wrote:as for JPII, he and his predecessors and priests have longed preached that the only reason for the existence of the church is to spread the gospel message. when the truth is known at the "end times" there is no more need to spread a message that all have already heard or seen. so yes, the church's goal, unbelievable as it sounds, is to make itself irrelevant. as is or should be the goal of any good government, any good leader, any good parent.

And in the meantime they play 'innocent' and continue to spread the word?

I find it so hard to understand that with the knowledge of not proclaiming 'the truth', the church still spreads the wrong message around?

I'm a sorry for my tone, and I am not sure of your knowledge or educational background with regards to the sciences, because I don't think you actually understand what Evolution or Natural selection is.

Evolution is a FACT and this argument was put to bed by scientists about 100 years ago. I can send you hundreds of papers, references and periodicals to support this from the most eminent thinkers in science. We know we evolve; we can make micro-evolution happen, we do already e.g. domesticated animals or almost all staple crops and fruits.

What is a theory; is the mechanism by which Evolution works; Natural selection is a theory. The FACT of Evolution is not even questioned by your Church (read the articles YOU posted) I’m not sure you have. It is the theory behind the mechanism that is questioned.

As an another example from science: Gravity is a fact; we all know apples fall down and not up (even though this is NOT 100% certain). But the rules and mechanism of how gravity works is a theory, including Newton's and Einstein’s work on the subject (neither of which can explain it in full).

And as much as my youthful infallible certainty may allow me form my judgment quickly and more easily (based on FACT) than an older inflexible closed mind; the extent of my infallible certainty is only matched, and in fact, surpassed by your obvious lack of education and background IN EVOLUTION (I am not saying you are uneducated in other areas, just not in any form of science).

I even question whether you understand the difference between a theory and a fact. It sounds as though you believe a theory is an unproven fact. This is NOT the case. A fact DOES NOT have to be 100% certain. I cannot be 100% certain that you exist let alone Evolution or God

ringo100 wrote:Evolution is a FACT and this argument was put to bed by scientists about 100 years ago.

What is a theory; is the mechanism by which Evolution works; Natural selection is a theory.

you are right. sorry for confusing my terms. guess i fell prey to what one of the articles i posted mentions, that we make the mistake of using the terms interchangeably. i do believe in evolution by the way, and do not think it contradicts my faith in any way. so i'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore. had a long day and hard to get back into this religious debate.

ps: i was joking about the infallible certainty bit so don't get into a huff about it ok? i'm sorry if it came out wrong. what i was referring to was your certainty that john paul II would turn in his grave at something that i said that was part of his own teachings anyway. i was just very amused. anyway let's not fight. i really don't enjoy visiting this forum when there's fighting going on.

I am wondering how negligent it would is to teach creationism at schools, instead of evolution - as is the case in quite a few school districts in the US.
I was stunned to have chats with people when I was best man (a comon occurrence ) at a friend's wedding in northern Florida - he married a Southern Baptist lady - very nice and very dim - daughter of a preacher. (And my friend is a Chicago Polish Jew . . . go figure!)

It's quite amazing how these people simply refuse to allow discussion/debate on this topic, which does firmly set my opinion on Marx's 'opiate of the masses'. What better way to control a people than to not give them alternatives and threaten punishment if one questions the status quo.